Psychotherapy

[User156079]

I have providd two articles that indicate that herapists, incl psychiatrists are at higher risk for suicide and show depression rates similar or higher to general population. Which doctors kill themselves more idk, it may be anastesiologists, psychiatrists, dentists or other idk.. Some studies suggest that its psychatrists. Does it matter tho when they are considered therapists and therapists are evident to be increased risk?

[Alexander____]

I have providd two articles that indicate that herapists, incl psychiatrists are at higher risk for suicide and show depression rates similar or higher to general population. Which doctors kill themselves more idk, it may be anastesiologists, psychiatrists, dentists or other idk.. Some studies suggest that its psychatrists. Does it matter tho when they are considered therapists and therapists are evident to be increased risk?

Here is some evidence on suicide http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/5/296 and burnout rates https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/m ... nout-rates

However, these are doctors not psychotherapists. A few of the psychiatrists may also be psychotherapists but the overwhelming majority are not.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. You seem to be placing the anti-psychiatry movement onto psychotherapy. Many of those working in mental health are very much against the medical model of mental health. Psychotherapists are generally very open minded on this point.

On a previous comment made in this thread, all psychotherapists have to undergo therapy themselves as part of the training.

Anyway, I started this thread as a means to discuss the relationship between psychotherapy and Buddhism not to debate the origins of religion or whether psychotherapy or Buddhist practice helps more for those in mental distress.

[User156079]

You seem to be placing the anti-psychiatry movement onto psychotherapy.

It is so perhaps, i have a fundamentalistic view in regards to nature of reality and i mostly just think alot of treatments are useless and most psychologists deeply confused. I shouldnt have made the statement about suicide rates as it was based on assumption of mine and obv didnt sit well wih u guys. I still think if we compare Theravda Buddhists to psychiatrists and exlude people who fall into both groups,we will find one group outclass the other in regards to happiness and mental health because Dhamma is the truth, i dont have other than proof by reasoning and logic but i think it's a safe bet. Anything not supported by the teachings is of little benefit at best, harmful at worst. Therefore i strongly favor an approach based on the truth no matter who teaches it psychologist or a monk.

[Alexander____]

Yeah I see where you're coming from.

I get the feeling most people here aren't too keen on psychiatrists and the medical model.

However, I'm sure that there are elements of psychotherapy that tie in well to Buddhism.

[binocular]

I could be wrong, but it sounds like your views about psychotherapy are the result of not having had a committed engaged extended psychotherapeutic experience. They sound like they are based on a very narrow reading about psychology and reflect confusion regarding the purpose and goals of psychotherapy (which is distinctly different from psychiatry). There are significant differences between the training / methods of psychotherapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. And within each group, there are a myriad number of schools / styles / views. There is no monolithic 'psychology'. For example, I rejected the validity / effectiveness of the DSM while still in graduate school and never incorporated into my view / practice.

I'm speaking from the perspective of considering the institutional power that psychotherapists/psychologists/psychiatrists or anyone else in the medical field has. When someone has the power to issue a document that can ruin a person's life, it doesn't matter whether this person is a psychotherapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor -- GP, or social worker, or whichever.

I have brought this up with you before, but you ignored it, suggesting that my skepticism may be based on bad experiences with professionals in the field of mental health care. I had no such bad experiences.

I am aware that those professionals sometimes have great institutional power and they can ruin a person's life with one document. One paper, one diagnosis that goes on the person's official medical record is enough to make that person unemployable, difficult to get insurance, and a host of other problems.

In the light of this great difference in institutional power, trust cannot exist between such a doctor/therapist and the patient.

[binocular]

However, I'm sure that there are elements of psychotherapy that tie in well to Buddhism.

Could you list some?

[User156079]

It would be interesting to discuss specific treatments strategies or studies. Because Buddhism has psychotherapy of it's own and i think it is unnatural for lack of a better word to discuss meditation and scriptual study as something other than psychotherapy.

I for one think behavioral psychologists are the ones who should be coming up with interesting stuff in regards to orgination and conditioning, this is what led me into Buddhism actually, seeing the conditioning and non self in my behavior in this context.

Ie fwiw i think the pavlov obv conditioned the dog to think about food when hering the bell, in turn thinking of food and hunger/craving as conditions for salivation, not hearing the sound of the bell... I wonder if this the orthodox view for psychologists?

[pink_trike]

The many regional variations of this multilevel multifaceted mnemotechnical language and corresponding social / moral code, dating back tens of thousands of years, wasn't supernatural religion. They were a way of life, consistent with the laws of nature and the celestial mechanics that drive them ... referred to as the "Law", the "Way", the Dao ... and as "Dharma / Dhamma" (which also means, among other things, 'Law'). Humanity's understanding of this Law has degraded into supernatural ideations and literal interpretations of allegoric / symbolic / anthropocentric / 'mythic' constructions.

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to produce your account - I found it very interesting. Does the section quoted above mean that you consider the apparently supernatural bits of the canon (post-mortem rebirth, kamma extending over various lifetimes, and the accounts of people flying through the air, etc.) to be something like misunderstandings or corruptions of what the Buddha taught?

I view 'religion' and religiosity as obscurations to clarity. I don't see value in telling supernatural stories, building hardened beliefs about them, building a false identity of 'self' based on the stories, and then feeling the need to defending this manufactured 'self' identity and the stories that created the need for it.

I view rebirth as something that can be perceived clearly with practice in every nanomoment, right here in mind, body, the natural world, and the cosmos. The same with karma / kamma ... with practice we can see it operating in our lives, society, the natural world. This seems more direct and effective than wrapping up in stories and beliefs (which humans tend to be addicted to). The less stories the better. The more practice, the less stories. The whole point of practice is to see through and dissolve our endless chattering illusory stories that blind us, trap us, and drag us around.

I prefer experiential knowledge over manufactured hermeneutics.

[User156079]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html
Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views


Impressive Sutta dealing with origination of all fundamental religous views, very interesting. Can scroll down to Chapter 3 if cba reading the whole discourse:)

[Alexander____]

However, I'm sure that there are elements of psychotherapy that tie in well to Buddhism.

Could you list some?

Well not really, that's why I started this topic. From seeing some books about Buddhism and Psychotherapy at the library of the Buddhist Society in London I expected there to be some links.

There are some relevant answers at the beginning of the thread before the conversation turned to the relative merits of psychology and psychiatry.

[binocular]

I view 'religion' and religiosity as obscurations to clarity. I don't see value in telling supernatural stories, building hardened beliefs about them, building a false identity of 'self' based on the stories, and then feeling the need to defending this manufactured 'self' identity and the stories that created the need for it.
/.../
I prefer experiential knowledge over manufactured hermeneutics.

These manufactured hermeneutics seem to play an important role in social cohesion and the relative mental health of people, though.


Edited for spelling.

[Sam Vara]

The many regional variations of this multilevel multifaceted mnemotechnical language and corresponding social / moral code, dating back tens of thousands of years, wasn't supernatural religion. They were a way of life, consistent with the laws of nature and the celestial mechanics that drive them ... referred to as the "Law", the "Way", the Dao ... and as "Dharma / Dhamma" (which also means, among other things, 'Law'). Humanity's understanding of this Law has degraded into supernatural ideations and literal interpretations of allegoric / symbolic / anthropocentric / 'mythic' constructions.

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to produce your account - I found it very interesting. Does the section quoted above mean that you consider the apparently supernatural bits of the canon (post-mortem rebirth, kamma extending over various lifetimes, and the accounts of people flying through the air, etc.) to be something like misunderstandings or corruptions of what the Buddha taught?

I view 'religion' and religiosity as obscurations to clarity. I don't see value in telling supernatural stories, building hardened beliefs about them, building a false identity of 'self' based on the stories, and then feeling the need to defending this manufactured 'self' identity and the stories that created the need for it.

I view rebirth as something that can be perceived clearly with practice in every nanomoment, right here in mind, body, the natural world, and the cosmos. The same with karma / kamma ... with practice we can see it operating in our lives, society, the natural world. This seems more direct and effective than wrapping up in stories and beliefs (which humans tend to be addicted to). The less stories the better. The more practice, the less stories. The whole point of practice is to see through and dissolve our endless chattering illusory stories that blind us, trap us, and drag us around.

I prefer experiential knowledge over manufactured hermeneutics.

Many thanks, pink_trike. Do you think it is possible to accept those accounts as true, without retelling them, hardening one's beliefs, creating a false identity of "self" around them, and then having to defend that identity?

[pink_trike]

A well written article relevant to the OP:

http://levekunst.com/karma-entrapment-or-liberation/